Special Education — Procedural Violations

D.O. v. Escondido Union School District – Federal Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit (Case No. 19–56043)

MEMBER(S) INVOLVED: Escondido Union School District

IMPORTANCE OF STATEWIDE ISSUE:

While school districts must provide a free appropriate public education (FAPE) to eligible students, this case provides an opportunity to clarify what happens when there is a procedural violation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and the violation itself does not necessarily result in the denial of an educational benefit or opportunity. If the court finds that a procedural violation of IDEA alone equates to a denial of FAPE, it could expose local educational agencies (LEAs) to increased liability and further complicate their ability to meet the educational needs of students with disabilities.

SUMMARY OF THE CASE:

Plaintiff student sued Escondido Union School District for a denial of FAPE, primarily based on a procedural violation of IDEA. The student alleged that he was denied FAPE because of a four-month delay by the school in offering to conduct an autism assessment after the school learned of an existing children’s hospital assessment that indicated the student met criteria for autism spectrum disorder.

Ruling for the district, the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) found that: 1) the four-month delay was not a procedural violation because it was a reasonable delay, and 2) even if it was a procedural violation, the student failed to prove that it denied him FAPE. The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California overturned the ALJ’s ruling, finding that the student was denied an educational benefit since his individualized education program (IEP) goals “were likely inappropriate [during the delay] because they were made without sufficient evaluative information about his individual capabilities as a potentially autistic child.” The court found that because the district waited four months to begin the process of gathering information that might reflect an autism diagnosis that reflected different needs than the existing IEP, it was impossible for the district to provide FAPE.

In 2020, Escondido Union SD appealed to the Ninth Circuit, arguing that the district court essentially ruled that a procedural violation alone was a per se denial of a FAPE, contrary to current law under which a procedural violation would be held to deny a student a FAPE only if it denies the student an educational benefit or opportunity or if it seriously infringes on a parent’s right to meaningfully participate in the IEP formulation process.

The ELA filed an amicus brief in support of the district before the Ninth Circuit on May 6, 2020.

On March 26, 2021, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal for a lack of jurisdiction, finding that the Office of Administrative Hearings decision regarding the remedy in this case did not create a final judgment in the district court that the appellate court could review.

After the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed Escondido Union SD’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction on a procedural issue, the school district obtained a final judgment from the lower court and refiled its appeal before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on Sept. 22, 2021. The appeal again argues that under current law, a procedural violation would be held to deny a student a FAPE only if it denies the student an educational benefit or opportunity or if it seriously infringes on a parent’s right to meaningfully participate in the IEP formulation process. The ELA filed another amicus brief in support of the district on Sept. 29, 2021.

CURRENT STATUS AND/OR OUTCOME:

Oral arguments were heard on July 13, 2022, the parties await the court’s decision.

Back to Report